The numbers that matter are these, how many fatal accidents involve drugs or alcohol?
22 years on the road, first call at 3 am to a dreadful smash so many times.
Part of that time also in a road rescue team.
On the death highway, up to 12 dead in two weeks.
It matters that drunks drive, and kill.
It matters that a short walk on any highway, near a truck parking bay will see interested people find more than one pill bottle, hundreds if you look for a few days.
I will take the test every time rather than see one more needless death.

It seems some are misinterpreting my point. I'm not suggesting that drugs and alcohol should be suddenly open slather, my point is that if the numbers of affected people on the roads is now so tiny, perhaps it is time to reconsider the massive resources being consumed.

Pavlov discovered years ago that the most effective way to condition behaviours is to have a punishment or reward administered randomly, rather than in a simple "stimulus/response" mechanism.

ISTM that we have a well-conditioned population that requires almost no application of the punishment to remain responsive. Furthermore, although the claim is that 50,000 Qlders were tested, this is a tiny fraction of the numbers on the roads. Most people already rarely encounter an RBT, yet less that 0.5% of the populace in Qld and less than 0.2% in NSW are apparently doing the wrong thing.

IOW, the main exposure most people have to these operations is via the media, so why not reduce the actual numbers and increase the publicity? The cost savings would be quite large.

Somehow a discussion on Alcohol testing turns into DRUG and Alcohol?
The Macquarie Uni, and another east coast uni that I don't recall, both did tests on how Mariahuana affected driving, and the results showed that drivers who'd been smoking tended to drive far more slowly and carefully than non-smokers, and NO discernable effects on their skills or judgment were found.
Given these results, it would seem we'd all be safer if we were encouraged to smoke it before driving, lol!
But I do wonder why they're testing for, and punishing, it? Alcohol testing makes obvious sense, but I suspect there's another agenda running there.

Max, the discussion was always about both.

I agree with your comments about marijuana. Having driven literally thousands of kilometers in all sorts of conditions whilst stoned and never having an accident in that condition, I must admit to some concern about these drug tests from a purely personal POV, but that wasn't the reason for my post

Do you think there is a vast, undetected group of people using drugs whilst driving? The propaganda that we have been getting for years is that a large portion of accidents are directly attributable to alcohol and/or drugs, yet the figures from this weekend show that the actual number under the influence is very small.

Are those small numbers really responsible for half the MVAs as has been frequently claimed? It doesn't make sense to me.

i can only agree max, i would take the issue further[randon drug testing is not random, they are well aware of who uses drugs, via criminal records and survelance withy known drug users]

but the road side breath testing scam is fully revealed for the farce it is[how many have seen them outside pubs after closing,i usually see them on main roads on monday moring when the policing units need to use up their backlog quota of testing

the system is a training tool getting people to submit to authority[authority colluding in an illegal activity]..yes we can all bring egsamples to the table of this or that road carnage, because thats how its sold to us.. but the facts are if drugs are detected there is still no proof the drugs were a public threat

those flying the modern jet fighters for egsample ARNT ALLOWED TO FLY IF THEY HAVNT taken their speed pil], truckdrivers drive on speed[they only smoke dope to cancel out the affect of speed]dope is an antidrug, plus being fat soluble it dosnt have a withdrawel, but that also mean's it is detectable long after its use[besides its a plant not a drug]

the whole statiostics game is flawed , police are failing to report many crimes formely, so thus by virtue of no crime report being filed they can statisticlly claim a fall in crime[but al that fell was the reportability of a crime[rape features way #up in this [by the time the police have finished their re play of the rape[then the courts 3 replays of the rape most victims cant face the ordeal ever again[it must be the most underreported crime ever

police seem helpless against white colour crime[they do nothing to stop the real criminals[they police petty crime , to revenue raise fcourt costs and fines from the peons, as for stoping major fraud or those who steal your pension or retirment funds, or those rip off bank charges or shop keeper or white colour fraud forget it

Statistics is the simple answer there, and vested interests.